Tribune Op Ed: Section 132 In Seminary This Week

[rockpond]

Interesting Op Ed in the Salt Lake Tribune from Saturday.  Kristy Money follows up her previous letter regarding the polygamy essay with a please to parents and seminary teachers...

 

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2335798-155/op-ed-think-seminary-teachers-before-acceding

 

I think she makes some good points about how we ought to re-think how we teach polygamy to our youth.

[ksfisher]

Interesting Op Ed in the Salt Lake Tribune from Saturday.  Kristy Money follows up her previous letter regarding the polygamy essay with a please to parents and seminary teachers...

 

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2335798-155/op-ed-think-seminary-teachers-before-acceding

 

I think she makes some good points about how we ought to re-think how we teach polygamy to our youth.

 

I don't have time for a longer response at the moment, but it seems to me to be just another attempt by a representative of a special interest group to influence others in a manner that causes them to lose faith in what the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are teaching.  I didn't miss the backhanded swipe at Elder Oaks, and by extension all those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Edited March 30, 2015 by ksfisher

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Interesting Op Ed in the Salt Lake Tribune from Saturday.  Kristy Money follows up her previous letter regarding the polygamy essay with a please to parents and seminary teachers...

 

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2335798-155/op-ed-think-seminary-teachers-before-acceding

 

I think she makes some good points about how we ought to re-think how we teach polygamy to our youth.

I am sorry who is this person? I think I will follow the prophets, whom we sustain, on this issue. Thanks.

[ksfisher]

One more point.  The phrase "As you read, ask yourselves: Would a loving God do that to his children?" seems to be an attempt to say that anything that doesn't fit my image of who God should be is not part of the gospel.  But God is not created in man's image, we are created in his.

[ksfisher]

Is Ms Money equating Joseph Smith with a sexual predator here?

 

"The teacher then is to explain how polygamy was necessary because all ancient practices needed to be restored to complete the Church's Restoration. Joseph was just righteously doing what he was told, and he and those who practiced it with him were blessed for their obedience even though members first recoiled at idea.

Look, parents and teachers, sexual predators have been using these rationalizations to seduce girls long before the church recently published them."

[Kenngo1969]

As much as dialogue on these issues might be a good thing, isn't there a potential for trouble when we start to ask, "Would a loving God do [x]?" or "Why would a loving God do [x]?" or to conclude, "A loving God wouldn't do [x]."  Too often, the purported answers to these questions start with the presupposition that, surely, God wouldn't dream of doing anything, of asking us to do anything, that would offend our 21st-century enlightened sensibilities.  Whatever the issue, whether it be polygyny or gay marriage or anything else, I just don't see that presupposition as providing a firm foundation from which to proceed.

 

As much as I have a testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's Restored Church on the earth, that the authority to lead it has been restored, and that those in positions to do so exercise that authority consistent with His will, I also believe that God's thoughts are not my thoughts, neither are His ways my ways, that just as the heavens are higher than the earth, His thoughts are higher than my thoughts and His ways are higher than my ways (see Isaiah 55:8-9); that He "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to [His Kingdom]" (Articles of Faith 1:9); that (as Nephi says), "I know that [God] loveth His children; nevertheless, I know not the meaning of all things" (1 Nephi 11:17); with King Benjamin, I "believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend" (Mosiah 4:9).

[rockpond]

I don't have time for a longer response at the moment, but it seems to me to be just another attempt by a representative of a special interest group to influence others in a manner that causes them to lose faith in what the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are teaching.  I didn't miss the backhanded swipe at Elder Oaks, and by extension all those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.

 

I think that other are already losing faith in what has been taught regarding polygamy.  This seems to me to be an attempt to keep people from losing faith.

 

How was her comment about Oaks a "backhanded swipe"?  I think she accurately understood what he was saying.

[rockpond]

Is Ms Money equating Joseph Smith with a sexual predator here?

 

"The teacher then is to explain how polygamy was necessary because all ancient practices needed to be restored to complete the Church's Restoration. Joseph was just righteously doing what he was told, and he and those who practiced it with him were blessed for their obedience even though members first recoiled at idea.

Look, parents and teachers, sexual predators have been using these rationalizations to seduce girls long before the church recently published them."

 

I think she is equating the rationalizations.

[rockpond]

As much as dialogue on these issues might be a good thing, isn't there a potential for trouble when we start to ask, "Would a loving God do [x]?" or "Why would a loving God do [x]?" or to conclude, "A loving God wouldn't do [x]."  

 

No, I think those are valid questions and not "potential for trouble".

 

But our "21st century sensibilities", as you indicate, should not be a factor.  On that point I agree.

[rockpond]

One more point.  The phrase "As you read, ask yourselves: Would a loving God do that to his children?" seems to be an attempt to say that anything that doesn't fit my image of who God should be is not part of the gospel.  But God is not created in man's image, we are created in his.

 

I agree that we should always avoid trying to project ourselves onto God's image.

 

But I still think the question is valid especially considering what the Lord has said about the tender feelings of His daughters.

[Tacenda]

I think things like this in religion can breed people into doing horrific things, all in the name of religion.  They are like cockroaches.  Almost impossible to eradicate.  

[Kenngo1969]

... I still think the question is valid especially considering what the Lord has said about the tender feelings of His daughters.

OK.  Many of them did plenty of speaking for themselves.  While polygynous marriages, like any other variety of marriage, ran the gamut (and while individuals who failed in their marital responsibilities after entering into such unions surely will be held accountable), not a few of those daughters expressed support for the principle.

 

No, I think those are valid questions and not "potential for trouble".

 

But our "21st century sensibilities", as you indicate, should not be a factor.  On that point I agree.

If Ms. Money isn't asking us to consider this (and, potentially, similar) questions in light of our enlightened 21st-century sensibilities, then I don't really understand the point of her op-ed is.

[JLHPROF]

What a load of drivel.  This article may express views shared by many, but it is absolutely not the correct approach to plural marriage.  Just a lot of presentism and anti-Joseph sentiment.

[JLHPROF]

One more point.  The phrase "As you read, ask yourselves: Would a loving God do that to his children?" seems to be an attempt to say that anything that doesn't fit my image of who God should be is not part of the gospel.  But God is not created in man's image, we are created in his.

 

I hate that phrase.  God's ways are not our ways.  What we see as loving and what God sees as loving are two entirely different things.

[Kenngo1969]

I think things like this in religion can breed people into doing horrific things, all in the name of religion.  They are like cockroaches.  Almost impossible to eradicate.  

Were polygynous marriages all "sweetness and light"?  Not any more than all monogamous marriages are, and surely those who are responsible for a failure to live up to marital responsibilities surely will be held accountable.  I know this is a blind spot or a sore spot for you, but personally, I find such observations/comparisons as this one offensive.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am sorry who is this person? I think I will follow the prophets, whom we sustain, on this issue. Thanks.

It boils down to a matter of whom I choose to trust: anointed servants of God who are in continual communion with Him on how to lead His Church or agitators from the outside or inside most likely motivated by self-interest and/or shifting whims of society.

 

I say again: I'll cast my lot with the prophets.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

One more point.  The phrase "As you read, ask yourselves: Would a loving God do that to his children?" seems to be an attempt to say that anything that doesn't fit my image of who God should be is not part of the gospel.  But God is not created in man's image, we are created in his.

 

Yes.  This exactly.

 

Think of all the things that happen to people every day-all the horrible trials that God asks us to go thru-and then see if her way of finding out if something is of God actually makes sense?

 

She might as well have just said "Ask yourself this, would a loving God do anything that you don't agree with or understand?" and it would be just as valid of a way to discern truth as her question is.

[rockpond]

OK.  Many of them did plenty of speaking for themselves.  While polygynous marriages, like any other variety of marriage, ran the gamut (and while individuals who failed in their marital responsibilities after entering into such unions surely will be held accountable), not a few of those daughters expressed support for the principle.

 

If Ms. Money isn't asking us to consider this (and, potentially, similar) questions in light of our enlightened 21st-century sensibilities, then I don't really understand the point of her op-ed is.

 

Is Jacob 2 just 21st century sensibilities?

[JLHPROF]

Is Jacob 2 just 21st century sensibilities?

 

Jacob 2 has been explained repeatedly.

It is very clear that polygamy was not the abomination referred to.  If taken in context it was the misuse of polygamy that was being called abomination.

Edited March 30, 2015 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

Yes.  This exactly.

 

Think of all the things that happen to people every day-all the horrible trials that God asks us to go thru-and then see if her way of finding out if something is of God actually makes sense?

 

She might as well have just said "Ask yourself this, would a loving God do anything that you don't agree with or understand?" and it would be just as valid of a way to discern truth as her question is.

 

I think we have to ask the associated questions:  Is this something God is commanding us to do?  Is this something that He allows because he respects agency?  Is this meant as a trial to strengthen us?

[rockpond]

Jacob 2 has been explained repeatedly.

It is very clear that polygamy was not the abomination referred to.  If taken in context it was the misuse of polygamy that was being called abomination.

 

Not what I was talking about.  We were discussing Kristy Money's perspective and I'm saying it isn't necessarily driven by "21st century sensibilities" (as if those are automatically a bad thing)... perhaps she's coming from this Jacob 2 perspective:

 

"31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

 

 32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

 

 33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts."

[JLHPROF]

 

Not what I was talking about.  We were discussing Kristy Money's perspective and I'm saying it isn't necessarily driven by "21st century sensibilities" (as if those are automatically a bad thing)... perhaps she's coming from this Jacob 2 perspective:

 

"31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

 

 32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

 

 33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts."

 

 

Fair enough, I am sure that is the angle she is approaching from.

Doesn't mean the doctrine or the history should be altered in teaching D&C 132.

[Kenngo1969]

Is Jacob 2 just 21st century sensibilities?

If it's conveniently and selectively read only as opposing polygyny it is.

[bluebell]

I think we have to ask the associated questions:  Is this something God is commanding us to do?  Is this something that He allows because he respects agency?  Is this meant as a trial to strengthen us?

 

I think so as well.

 

But she doesn't mention any of that.  It doesn't even seem to be on her radar as far as what she wants us to do about the seminary lessons.  

[rockpond]

If it's conveniently and selectively read only as opposing polygyny it is.

 

She doesn't say that she opposes polygamy/polygyny.  She's talking about how it is taught, the reasons for it, God's role, etc.